zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. harpia+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-12-06 15:54:52
At that point the whole idea becomes quite removed from what most people would think of when asked to consider if the universe is a simulation.

To clarify: without being able to simulate the universe from within the universe itself (i.e. needing to resort to some "outside" higher-fidelity universe), then the word "simulation" becomes meaningless.

We could just as easily refer to the whole thing (the inner "simulation" and the outer "simulation") as just being different "layers of abstraction" of the same universe, and drop the word "simulation" altogether. It would have the same ontology with less baggage.

replies(1): >>vercae+u4
2. vercae+u4[view] [source] 2025-12-06 16:28:23
>>harpia+(OP)
According to the current mathematical model we use to define the universe, built from Einstein’s field equations, we’re not in a simulation.

The said model is significantly misaligned with human perception regarding the start and edges of spacetime, so it’s completely valid to point out that it’s just a model (and that we might be in a simulation).

[go to top]